Dismissed

Nitc Multipurpose Co-Op. Society v. Chandran Nair

Kerala HC11 Aug 2016WP(C)/2533/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a co-operative society, sought recovery of loan dues from its employee (First respondent) via salary/service benefits held by the institute (Second respondent). The court rejected the claim that the Second respondent could be compelled to pay as no specific balance remained after third-party adjustments. The loan liability remains against the First respondent.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner not entitled to secure relief against Second respondent; free to proceed against First respondent.

Nitc Multipurpose Co-Op. Society Vs Chandran Nair — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/20TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 2533 of 2007 (B)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY CALICUT MULTIPURPOSE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. D.NO.1883, KOZHIKODE, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JACOB

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. CHANDRAN NAIR, S/O.UNNI NAIR, AGED 54 YEARS, VATTAKANDIYIL, CHATHAMANGALAM, MALAYAMMADESOM, KOZHIKODE.

¶11

2. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR, FINANCE, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT, KOZHIKODE.

¶12

*ADDL.R3 IMPLEADED

¶13

*R3: THE BRANCH MANAGER, KSFE, MUKKAM BRANCH, KOZHIKODE.

¶14

*ADDITIONAL 3RD RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 5/12/08 IN IA.NO.15300/08.

¶15

R2 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI ADDL.R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN, SC, K.S.F.E., LTD.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

sts

¶18

WP(C).NO.2533/2007

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶21

P1 COPY OF THE LOAN APPLICATION OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 22/7/2003.

¶22

P2 COPY OF THE RECEIPT SHOWING THE RECOVERY FROM SALARY OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 7/10/2005

¶23

P3 COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 12/12/2005.

¶24

P4 COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 23/1/2006

¶25

P5 COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 12/1/2007

¶26

P6 COPY OF THE UNDERTAKING EXECUTED BY FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED NIL

¶27

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶28

R3(A) COPY OF THE EMPLOYMENT CERTIFICATE AND AGREEMENT FOR RECOVERY FROM SALARY MADE BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF KSFE.

¶29

R3(B) COPY OF THE UNDERTAKING MADE BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 9/5/2005 TO EFFECT RECOVERIES FROM HIS SALARY THROUGH HIS EMPLOYER.

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

sts

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶34

W.P.(C) No.2533 of 2007

¶35

----------------------------------------------Dated this the 11^th day of August, 2016

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

Petitioner is a Co-operative society. Members of the society are the staff and employees of the 2^nd respondent National Institute of Technology, Calicut. First respondent availed a loan of Rs.50,000/- and the same fell due. Second respondent used to recover instalments from the salary of the respective members. However, 1^st respondent availed voluntary retirement, and the retiral benefits are being released by the 2^nd respondent to the 1^st respondent. Petitioner requested to recover the dues from the 1^st respondent and pay the same to the society. However, 2^nd respondent insisted for court orders for the said purpose, is the contention. According to the petitioner, in terms of Sec.37 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, 2^nd respondent is duty bound to recover the amount from the salary/service benefits of the 1^st respondent and pay the same to the petitioner. It is in this background, alleging inaction on the part of the 2^nd respondent, petitioner has approached this

¶38

W.P.(C) No.2533 of 2007 2

¶39

Court by filing this writ petition.

¶40

Subsequently, the Branch Manager, K.S.F.E, Mukkam Branch, Kozhikode is impleaded as additional 3^rd respondent. At the time of filing of this writ petition, an interim order was passed by this Court on 22.01.2007 directing to keep in abeyance the disbursement of the service benefits for a period of one month. However, from the proceedings sheet, I find that the said order was not extended any further.

¶41

Second respondent has filed a counter affidavit disputing the allegations made against the 2^nd respondent. It is also stated that whatever amounts due to the 1^st respondent in terms of the retirement benefits was released to the 1^st respondent after adjusting the amounts due to K.S.F.E and SBI CREC Branch. There was no amount available with the 2^nd respondent to pay to the petitioner in accordance with the requisition made by the petitioner.

¶42

Heard respective counsel, perused the pleadings and documents on record. Contentions are advanced by the respective counsel in terms of the facts discussed above.

¶43

¶44

W.P.(C) No.2533 of 2007

¶45

In my considered opinion, in view of the counter affidavit filed by the 2^nd respondent, it cannot be said that the 2^nd respondent can be compelled to make the payment to the petitioner, without any amount remaining due from the 2^nd respondent to the 1^st respondent. In that view of the matter, petitioner is not entitled to secure any relief against the 2^nd respondent.

¶46

However, the liability if any, still subsists against the 1^st respondent, petitioner will be at liberty to proceed against the 1^st respondent in accordance with law, and in terms of agreement executed, by the principal debtor and the sureties to the transaction in question.

¶47

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶48

Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶49

//true copy//

¶50

P.S. to Judge

¶51

St/11.08.2016

Nitc Multipurpose Co-Op. Society v. Chandran Nair

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitc Multipurpose Co-Op. Society v. Chandran Nair

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Joseph Thomas Vs Part Time Administrator

Kerala Primary Co-Operative Societies Vs Wyanad District Co-Operative Bank

Shiaymol Thomas Vs the Kozhuvanal

Ivy Mary Jacob Vs Ambaloor Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

K.P. Hamza Vs State of Kerala